DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 (examined as 1-16 as explained below, filed 10/28/2023, are pending and are currently being examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. The present invention…”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one game element, user’s hand(s), rear region, left region, right region, front region, at least one façade, at least one passage above said playing surface, at least one passage with at least one border, at least one border (claim 1), different passages (claims 2-5), side passages and uncoverable cover (claim 3, 8), the goal having two protruding posts (claim 6), the playing apparatus used with the platform (1, 3, claims 15-16), and the embedded magnetism in the playing surface (claim 13, 16), and game element, passages, extremities, uncoverable covers, axis, and vertical plane (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the most critically important drawings that show the playing platform (Fig. 12-13) are presented as greyscale copies of computer images or screen shots that are generally unclear and hard to see any details of the invention therein, and therefore it is difficult to understand the claimed invention based on the presented drawings. The majority of the drawings show different playing pieces which are not part of the main inventive concept of this application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, “exceeding height level” should likely read “exceeding a height level”, in line 12, “said goal” should likely read “said goal or target”, in line 14, “said goal” should likely read “said goal or target”, and in line 24, “said goal” should likely read “said goal or target”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “said goal” should likely read “said goal or target”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “said goal” should likely read “said goal or target”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with two periods. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (see MPEP 608.01(m), 37 CFR 1.75(i)).
Claims 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: at the beginning of line 7, “15.” Should be deleted as this is appears to have auto-populated as a new claim line, however the limitation appears to be a continuation of claim 14. For examination purposes, claim 15 will be ignored and claims 16 and 17 will be considered as claims 15-16, which they should be renumbered as if the examiner’s assumption is correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 (presented as 1-17) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said user” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" (lines 1, 20, and 23) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15 (presented as 16), the phrase "such as" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-13 and 16 (presented as 17) are therefore rejected as they depend from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Corrado US Pub. No. 2005/0029734.
Corrado teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A playing platform with at least one shield for guarding at least one game element such as a ball or puck within said playing platform for bouncing back on a playing surface (playing platform 2 having playing surface 12 with game element puck 60 and protective walls 62 extending above the goals/targets 64 extending around and protruding above the playing surface, and extended shield member 14 further extending above the walls of the playing area, Fig. 1-6), the playing platform comprising:
a goal or target larger than a user's hand and located on said playing surface at a rear region between a left region and a right region of said playing surface (centrally located at opposing ends of the playing area are two goals 16 which are larger than a user’s hand (relative term in which an infant hand would appear to clearly fit therein) which are approximately the same size as the game element retrieval pocket 22 which a hand is meant to be inserted to receive a puck that passes through the goal, [0031]);
wherein said goal or target is facing a front region of said playing surface (the front face of the goal 16 defines by boundary wall 62 covered by a goal ring which faces the playing surface);
wherein said at least one shield with at least one facade bordering above a rear region of said playing surface (the walls around the goal extend above each portion of the playing surface, including the rear, as does the shield 14 which extends on the rear surfaces behind the goal and may extend from any part of the playing area as desired to act as a facade and further prevent the puck from leaving the playing surface, [0029], Fig. 1);
said at least one facade protruding upward and exceeding height level of said goal or target (the walls around the goal extend above each portion of the playing surface, including the rear, as does the shield 14 which extends on the rear surfaces behind the goal and may extend from any part of the playing area as desired to act as a facade and further prevent the puck from leaving the playing surface, [0029], Fig. 1);
wherein at least one of said at least one facade bordering above said playing surface on a right of said goal (walls 62 and shield façade 14 each extend above the goal to the left and right sides of the goal);
wherein at least one of said at least one facade bordering above said playing surface on a left of said goal (walls 62 and shield façade 14 each extend above the goal to the left and right sides of the goal);
wherein said at least one shield with at least one passage located above said playing surface for said user's hand to reach a front of said goal or target to interact with game elements on said playing surface (the upper area above the playing surface is an open passage to allow a user to reach onto the playing surface from above);
wherein said at least one passage with at least one border (the upper area above the playing surface is an open passage defined by a border at the top edge of shield 14 and/or top of wall 62, to allow a user to reach onto the playing surface from above);
wherein at least another passage of said at least one passage for said user to hold and control an apparatus such as a shooting apparatus with another of said user's hand or with both hands of said user to propel said game elements toward said goal or target (shooting apparatuses/player sticks 40 propel the game puck towards the goals during play controlled by a user’s hand via hand operated rods 18 with handles 20 which pass through passages 70 in the device);
wherein at least another passage of said at least one passage for another user to hold and control an apparatus such as said shooting apparatus to propel said game elements toward said goal (at least two sets of shooting apparatuses (player sticks) 40 propel the game puck towards the respective goals during play controlled by a user’s hand via hand operated rods 18 with handles 20 which pass through passages 70 in the device).
In Reference to Claim 2
The playing platform as recited in Claim 1, wherein said at least one passage is located on a left side or on a right side of said playing surface next to said goal (the open top area extends to the left and right side of the playing surfaces near the goal, as do the player stick apparatuses and openings they are movable therein, Fig. 1-2).
In Reference to Claim 3
The playing platform as recited in Claim 2, wherein said at least one passage located on a left side of said playing surface and at least another of said at least one passage located on a right side of said playing surface for said user's hand to reach said playing surface in front of said goal or target with a hand-operated apparatus to interact with said game elements, wherein said at least one passage is with at least one uncoverable cover placed for guarding said game elements on said playing surface (playing elements 60 are engaged by a user activated player stick 40 via handles 20 on rods 18, which extend through openings 70 in the left and right sides of the device with movable bumper covers 30 which selectively engage and limit movement of the playing apparatuses within the playing area, Fig. 1-5, [0033]-[0039]).
In Reference to Claim 4
The playing platform as recited in Claim 3, wherein said at least one passage is located at a similar height level to said goal or target or above said height level of said goal or target (the playing apparatus openings 20 are positioned at a similar height to the goal, Fig. 1-2, and the open top passage is above the height of the goal, Fig. 1-3a).
In Reference to Claim 5
The playing platform as recited in Claim 4, wherein said at least one passage with said border is located below said at least one passage and at least another one of said at least one border located on a side in proximity to said goal (the shooting apparatus side passages 70 extend through the sides/border of the device below the upper open passage beginning at the top of the shield 14 to allow access from above the device).
In Reference to Claim 6
The playing platform as recited in Claim 5, wherein said goal or target has two posts protruding upward from said playing surface (the goal 16 has a boundary wall with a goal ring 64 formed around the goal opening, wherein the goal ring 64 is formed by two vertical post defining portions and a horizontal crossbar defining portion, Fig. 1-2, [0030]).
In Reference to Claim 7
The playing platform as recited in Claim 6, wherein said playing platform with another one of said at least one goal or target located at said front region of said playing surface, wherein said another one of said at least one goal or target is facing said goal or target on an opposite side for at least another user for a face to face a match-up (pair of goals 16 with goal rings 64 face one another from opposing sides of the device, Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrado as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cheng US Pat. No. 6,659,457.
In Reference to Claim 8
Corrado teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 7, wherein said front region of said playing surface with said at least one shield, wherein said at least one shield with at least one passage, wherein said at least one passage with at least one cover placed for guarding said game elements on said playing surface (playing shield 14 acts as a cover placed over the guard walls 62 of the playing surface 14 extends above the guard walls around the entire playing surface, including the front area, to guard the game element puck 60 on the playing surface, Fig. 1, [0029]).
Corrado fails to teach:
At least one uncoverable cover placed for guarding said game elements on said playing surface.
Further, Cheng teaches:
A similar playing platform having a playing surface and a removable translucent cover extending above the playing surface to retain the playing element within the playing surface during use (removable transparent shield/cover 60 extends above and over the playing surface 13 to retain the playing element 59 on the playing surface during use, Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 23-24)
Though Corrado doesn’t specifically teach the shield having a ceiling or top border portion and being removable to uncover and allow access to the playing surface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included a ceiling top covering shield to allow the playing surface to be fully enclosed during play to prevent the playing element from being able to leave the device during play as this is known and common in the art as taught by Cheng (Col. 4 lines 23-24), and further as Corrado teaches that the shield is translucent to permit full view of the playing surface while maintaining the puck within the playing surface, the shield should depend upwardly from the top planar face of the top and is generally aligned with the perimeter of the placing surface and may be placed anywhere on the top ([0029]) and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find using other known shield covers that cover the entire top area of the device during use to have been an obvious modification. Further, the top ceiling cover portion being removable to cover and uncover the top passage to allow selective access into the playing area would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179). In this case, Corrado teaches the shield is meant to allow full view of the playing surface while maintaining the puck on the playing surface during use and the shield may extend in any way around the playing surface and Cheng teaches that full transparent removable ceiling enclosures are known and common in the art and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to be obvious.
In Reference to Claim 9
Corrado as modified by Cheng teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 8, wherein at least one of said at least one shield is translucent or transparent (protruding shield 14 is translucent to permit full view of the playing surface and maintaining the puck on the playing surface, [0029], and Cheng teaches a transparent dome/cover 60 as discussed above).
In Reference to Claim 10
Corrado as modified by Cheng teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 9, wherein said at least one shield with suitable distance with said playing surface for a forearm of said user's hand to be ergonomically inserted for interacting with game elements in front of said goal or target (a user may insert their arms into the top opening of the shield 14 to interact with a puck 60 on the game surface 12, Fig. 1, when the top portion of Cheng is removed as modified above).
In Reference to Claim 11
Corrado as modified by Cheng teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 10, wherein said at least one shield is protruding from said playing surface to cover all the way above said at least one passage with a top side border (Cheng teaches a horizontally extending ceiling cover portion of a transparent shield member connected to side borders similar to those of Corrado, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 12
Corrado as modified by Cheng teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 11, wherein said at least one shield is protruding from said playing surface to cover all the way above said at least one passage with a ceiling above said playing surface (Cheng teaches a horizontally extending ceiling cover portion of a transparent shield member to entirely enclose the area above the playing surface, Fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrado and Cheng as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Trachtman US Pat. No. 3,913,918.
In Reference to Claim 13
Corrado as modified by Cheng teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 12 as rejected above.
Corrado fails to teach:
Wherein said playing surface in front of said goal or target is embedded with magnetism to interact with a hand-operated apparatus..
Further, Trachtman teaches:
A similar playing platform having a playing surface (16) for a game element (puck 14) to move along and a shield extending around and protruding from the playing surface, the shield extending above the maximum height level of the goals or targets (walls 13 of boundary 11 extend above the max height of the goals/passages 12, Fig. 1), wherein said playing surface in front of said goal or target is embedded with magnetism to interact with a hand-operated apparatus (magnets may be embedded into pucks or distributed on the board (near/in front of goals) to cause misdirection and introduce additional gaming skill elements, Col. 5 line 38 – Col. 6 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Corrado to have included embedded magnets in the playing board in order to make the game play more difficult or challenging by introducing random movement of the game element during play as is known and used in the art as taught by Trachtman (Co. 5 line 38 – Col. 6 line 4). Further, the exact location or placement of the magnets is a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claims 14-16 (presented as 14-17) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ples US Pat. No. 5,433,443 in view of Trachtman US Pat. No. 3,913,918.
In Reference to Claim 14
Ples teaches:
A playing platform (hockey game playing platform 10, Fig. 1-4) with a playing surface and at least one shield to guard at least one game element such as a ball or puck within said playing platform on a playing surface (puck 30 moves along playing surface 16 during play inside shielded walls 17-20 that keep the puck on the playing surface during play),
wherein said playing platform with at least four passages located at four different extremities (four passages are formed at opposing extremities/positions 22/24/26/28 to form goals with nets 32 positioned in the passages), wherein at least two of said at least four passages are covered and are uncoverable to allow a hand of at least two users to reach an axis of a vertical plane of said playing platform (a user may reach through the openings 22/24/26/28 to reach a vertical plane in the playing area (by removing nets), and the passages are covered by nets 32 for use and are coverable and uncoverable by movable goalies/blockers placed in front of each of the nets and passages),
wherein at least two goals or targets are located on said vertical plane (each pair of goals are positioned on opposite ends of the playing surface along an axis of a vertical plane (ex. 24/28 or 22/26)), wherein said at least one shield is protruding from said playing surface above a height level of said at least two goals or targets (the shields/walls 17-20 extend to at least the top of the goals and are therefore protruding above the playing surface and above a level of a midpoint of the goal or above the netted portion of the goal (shielded walls shown as extending to the top of the post/crossbar of the goal, therefore the top of the walls is positioned above the netted portion of the goal (as the netted area begins under the crossbar) and positioned above any other point or selected height level of the goal, such as a midpoint height)).
Ples fails to teach:
The at least one shield is protruding above a maximum height of said at least two goals or targets.
Further, Trachtman teaches:
A similar playing platform having a playing surface (16) for a game element (puck 14) to move along and a shield extending around and protruding from the playing surface, the shield extending above the maximum height level of the goals or targets (walls 13 of boundary 11 extend above the max height of the goals/passages 12, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Ples to have included an extended height shield above the goal height and above the walls in order to further protect the user from a puck leaving the playing surface and prevent the puck from leaving the device during use as is known in the art and commonly used as shown by Trachtman (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 17-35). Further, the exact height, shape, or configuration of the shield is a matter of obvious design choice as it would be desired to shape and size the shield to keep the game element on the playing surface during use and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47).
In Reference to Claim 15 (presented as 16)
Ples as modified by Trachtman teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 14, wherein at least another two of said at least four passages are uncovered for said two users to hold and control an apparatus such as a shooting apparatus to propel at least one of said game elements toward said goal or target (Ples: the playing surface 10 and walls 17-20 each have additional respective passages (playing surface slots for each player ex. 36/44/52/62 and wall openings/passages for each control rod ex. 73, Fig. 3-4) that movably receive shooting apparatuses/players (ex. 12/46/50/60/etc.) therein to allow a user to control the players to propel the pucks towards the goals to play the game using controlling rods/ends (ex. 48/56/66), Fig. 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 16 (presented as 17)
Ples teaches:
The playing platform as recited in Claim 15, wherein said playing surface in front of said goal or target is embedded with magnetism to interact with a hand-operated apparatus (Trachtman: magnets may be embedded into pucks or distributed on the board (near/in front of goals) to cause misdirection and introduce additional gaming skill elements, Col. 5 line 38 – Col. 6 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Ples to have included embedded magnets in the playing board in order to make the game play more difficult or challenging by introducing random movement of the game element during play as is known and used in the art as taught by Trachtman (Co. 5 line 38 – Col. 6 line 4). Further, the exact location or placement of the magnets is a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Barcelow (4,480,833), Wilton (5,482,273), Makhoul (6,663,108), Corrado (7,219,892), Oister (2005/0035541) teach additional covers and shielding members extending above the walled playing area and Untener (2,079,136), Dennison (3,228,688), Cooper (3,391,933), Bird (4,018,443), Joseph (4,076,242), Gibbs (4,482,153), Laine (5,046,734), Nicoll (5,242,164), Sutter (6,409,169), LaRochelle (CA 2445562), and Nikitine (WO2009/097665) teach similar hockey game devices.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711